What is Your take on what Jesus Said?

Cyberthug

Quote:

---

It is much easier for the religious to accept speciation as a result of genetics that god created then to accept evolution.

---

Yes, that is true but only because they believe that all genes in a partular species are present in every member. Each race (within the species) manifests different genes to display the relevant characteristics but they're all selecting from the same gene pool.

What they don't accept is that new characteristics arise from genetic mutation. They insist that a species' gene pool is static. This is not the case.

They don't like the idea that each species is developing new characterisics by mutating existing genes as well as selecting different genes from it's "pool".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is, don't confuse speciation with evolution. One is a subset of the other. It is much easier for the religious to accept speciation as a result of genetics that god created then to accept evolution.

---

Good answer :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Yes, well... we have made a material so dense that it slows the travel of light to centimeters per minute. It is entirely fesible that you could change the specific density of water, or yourself.

Again... I attribute this to exageration, but it is entirely possible that you may one day walk on water.

---

Sure, a lot of stuff is possible with the use of technology, but all Jesus had were his sandals :p Unless he was an alien, and posessed a piece of technology that was able to change the molecular structure of things, such as water into wine, and his feet into airbags :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Cyberthug



Yes, that is true but only because they believe that all genes in a partular species are present in every member. Each race (within the species) manifests different genes to display the relevant characteristics but they're all selecting from the same gene pool.

What they don't accept is that new characteristics arise from genetic mutation. They insist that a species' gene pool is static. This is not the case.

They don't like the idea that each species is developing new characterisics by mutating existing genes as well as selecting different genes from it's "pool".

---

Exactly.

Silly zealots.

nullus

Quote:

---

So you're saying that God never gave us the right to exist?

---

Adam and Eve did have the right to exist until they did something wrong.

Quote:

---

If God created me and knows me better than I know myself, then, in his infinite wisdom, he must have known what sort of person I'd turn out to be, and whether I'd worship him or not.

---

Since you have free will, you do as you choose. You can change your mind at any time. God didn't forsee everything.

Quote:

---

But why would a perfect species have an imperfection? That makes no sense. If Adam and Eve were perfect, they wouldn't have sinned in the first place. Simple fact is, God screwed up.

---

If they're perfect, it doesn't mean they can't do anything wrong. Eve was totally deceived by Satan. Satan completely restructured her perception of the world around her. That's why she made the bad decision to eat the fruit. Adam just listened to his wife. He wasn't deceived. He knew what he was doing, and he chose to do it. He may have been perfect, but he still had free will.

Quote:

---

Proof of evolution exists all around us. For example, we all came from Adam and Eve right? So how do you explain the physical differences between Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc.? The only explanation is that humans spread around the world, adapting to their various surroundings (ie. evolved). If humans didn't evolve, then we'd all have the same physical characteristics.

---

I forgot about that one. Sorry.

I was trying to do recsearch to find out what that was called. CiberTHuG said it was speciation. I knew it was different from evolution, but I didn't know where to look for information on it. It appears that he answered your question quite well.


CiberTHuG also answered the walk-on-water question pretty well, too. There is much about the world around us that we don't know. You can be sure that God knows all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur
I forgot about that one. Sorry.

I was trying to do recsearch to find out what that was called. CiberTHuG said it was speciation. I knew it was different from evolution, but I didn't know where to look for information on it. It appears that he answered your question quite well.


CiberTHuG also answered the walk-on-water question pretty well, too. There is much about the world around us that we don't know. You can be sure that God knows all of it.

---

To be honest, I'm not all that sure I understand this speciation theory. Are you saying that Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc. are the result of simple genetic mutations from 2 humans with different characteristics, such as you'd get with 2 different breeds of dog mating to create a cross-breed?

If so, why are Black people very well suited to the climate of Africa, White people suited to the climate of Europe, Asians...well you get my point. :) One day, Europe may move to the equator, and White people aren't exactly well suited to the climate there. The same if Africa moved to the South Pole. The species would have to adapt to the change in climate.

There was a documentary here not long ago, that followed the history of the human species. They believe they've discovered where humans first emerged on the planet (the east coast of Africa I believe) about 150,000 years ago or something. They then tracked the movement of the species northward, spreading out into Europe (where they encountered Neanderthals) and Asia. The humans that went in to Asia then moved on to the Americas. They also believe that the humans that had to share Europe with Neanderthals became the dominant species due to their superior brain power, and the Neanderthals ended up becoming extinct.

I guess they could've bred with the Neanderthals, but it seems pretty unlikely, seeing as Neanderthals were much larger in size and didn't last that long.

If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.
The physical laws were made up by man, it seems contradicting that God would have to obey man.
Man usually has two problems with reality: 1. He think he owns it and 2. He think he knows what it is.
Now going for some God axioms: 1. A God needs to know everything and be able to do anything, he is the master of his reality. 2. Everything within his reality obeys him, so he are the rules. And my teorem is: if God decided man was the big deal in his creation, he wouldn't create man to fit into a universe but made a universe to fit for man.

If that doesn't make sense, then i'll explain again, it has to, because it's our logics, and if i was God i would let my creation inherit my logics.

If you throw a 6 on your dice, it isn't because of the physical laws, it's because there was a reason for why you would need a 6 and physics adapted that reason. Doesn't make sense for a scientist but it is still logical.

Technocrat

Quote:

---

All religions have done some "evil" deeds and claimed they were for god. It doesn’t take much to find those deeds. There hasn’t been a religion that I have seen that hasn’t been evil or corrupt at some point in there history.

---

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

Quote:

---

Can't really argue that one too much. Except if we live are lives to the best of our abilities why must it matter if we worship to him or not. If he is really all loving and everything it should not matter if we warship him as long as we lived a good life.

---

If you don't worship him, you aren't really living your life to the best of your ability. You are choosing not to worship him. Worshipping him is just as required as not lying, cheating, etc.

If you live a completely good life except for committing adultery, that's not considered a good life. It was spoiled by one thing. It's the same thing with worshipping God. If you do everything else, but you don't worship God, it was ruined by one thing.

Quote:

---

Which makes me think of another point, prayer. Know where prayer (In this case putting your hands together, facing the floor, and praying to god) comes from. It was stolen from those dirty Satan worshiping, heathens, the Pagans.

---

I don't know where the stereotypical position for prayer came from, so I'm going to have to assume you're right.

The bible mentions all sorts of positions of prayer, and there is no set posture you must have when you pray. You can actually say a prayer without having any outward appearance that you are praying. (See Nehemiah 2:4) The bible says to pray "with every form of prayer and supplication" (See Ephesians 6:18).

Quote:

---

If god is so powerful why doesnt he supply the money and land? Why do the people have to?

---

How can I answer this? The money always came from the people. Though it is bad to waste the money on material posessions and showing off, as the catholics so blatantly did. In the bible, the money came voluntarily. (See Mark 12:41-43) My best answer is that it's a way the people can show their devotion.

Quote:

---

Still why does a religion need that much land and money?

---

How much is "that much"? See my above answer.

Quote:

---

It was a well-discussed historical discovery a few years ago that the first known copy of a bible, showed up years before AD and Jews had it. I can’t remember much about it because I read about it awhile back, but it was traced back to a Jewish (I believe) writer and scholar. Not a religious person, not a priest, not a king, a writer. Before this time no recorded evidence was ever found about the bible. But most religious officials tried to discredit this discovery and bury it. I have not heard about it since then. But this does not surprise me, because if it were true, it would greatly hurt their base of ideas and beliefs. With all the money, power, and high-powered people they could through at this problem, it does not shock me it just went away.

---

I can't say anything about it because I don't know anything about it. All I can say is that I've never heard of it. If it was so well-discussed, there's gotta be something about it somewhere..




Okay, I got halfway through. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the rest right now. I'll have to answer it later.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
If you throw a 6 on your dice, it isn't because of the physical laws, it's because there was a reason for why you would need a 6 and physics adapted that reason. Doesn't make sense for a scientist but it is still logical.

---

Uhm... its called fate.

Nullus, the speciation thing works just like evolution, it is part of evolution. Man is taller now than he was 1000 years ago. That came about because of speciation. It is evolution because taller is the dominate specie.

I hope that makes sense, but I doubt it.

Anyway... yes, groups adapt to their environment. Usually you will find that certain traits are physically more attractive and that is why the specie gravitaties to that trait.

The difference between evolution and speciation is simply the size. We've seen speciation, we can invoke it. To see evolution, to see man come from [not neandthratal but the other one] is evolution. We likely aren't sexually compatible with out ancestor because there is that much of a shift in our genetics. But species are sexually compatible.

Anyway, speciation is just evolution on a small scale. Even zealots can accept evolution on that degree, since man hasn't fundamentally changed, we just think tall is sexy. To convince people that all mammallian life is distantly related, well... that's tough.

Tygur, what is with this finite list that the Jehovah Witness's talk about?

Nope, fate is not the word. It's all about control, this assumes there is a controlling entity that makes three things possible: 1. There is a God, 2. There will be a God 3. There's no need for a God. The third is fate

Now I see neither you or Tygur don't understand my point, because it should explain for all of you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
Nope, fate is not the word. It's all about control, this assumes there is a controlling entity that makes three things possible: 1. There is a God, 2. There will be a God 3. There's no need for a God. The third is fate

Now I see neither you or Tygur don't understand my point, because it should explain for all of you.

---

*grumblegrumble* Okay, I'm sick of having to post in the wide format. Somebody needs to wrap this stuff.

Anyway... Kedaman, you will have to rewrite that post. Its not making sense. The post is saying that fate assumes that there is a divinity that has three rules, and that the third rule is fate?

Your example of the cast die: If you needed a 6, and you got a six, that is called fate. You enter a semantic arguement if you debate that point.

Mind you, it is also fate if you didn't get it. But the idea is the same, there was some rational decision behind the result, and not Chaotic chance.

And while I'm here

Quote:

---

from Kedaman
If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.
The physical laws were made up by man, it seems contradicting that God would have to obey man.
Man usually has two problems with reality: 1. He think he owns it and 2. He think he knows what it is.

---

If there are no laws, then why do you have to be a god to walk on water? Can't you do it now?

If man made the laws, then one can only conclude that man came before the laws. If that is so, evolution is wrong, there can only have been a creation.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think there is any man in this forum who thinks he owns reality. And we all know what reality is. No matter how we define it, it is that which is still there when we are not.

fate assumes predestination which is not what my example does, anyways it was meant to be relevant to the topic, which got totally ignored.

Quote:

---

If there are no laws, then why do you have to be a god to walk on water? Can't you do it now?

---

I could if i was God. I'm having a theory that i could implicitely do it if i assumed i was God.

Quote:

---

If man made the laws, then one can only conclude that man came before the laws. If that is so, evolution is wrong, there can only have been a creation.

---

Don't missunderstand me now, i'm sticking to what i've been trying to explain to you earlier, about laws being models for explaining observed phenomenons

Quote:

---

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think there is any man in this forum who thinks he owns reality. And we all know what reality is. No matter how we define it, it is that which is still there when we are not.

---

Do you own your computer? it's part of your reality. Do you have right to eat and live? You assume. Do you stand for your thoughts? theyre's yours. Man consumes and assumes.



kedaman

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Tygur, what is with this finite list that the Jehovah Witness's talk about?

---

Finite list? List of what?

Quote:

---

...if God decided man was the big deal in his creation, he wouldn't create man to fit into a universe but made a universe to fit for man.

---

Which did he do then?To me it would seem we're trying our best to fit into the universe rather than the universe being shaped around us.

Quote:

---

If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.

---

Do you mean that Jesus might have believed he was divine so much that he shaped reality around him?

It seems to me, though, that if he used the laws of physics to walk on water then that's simply another way of saying he cheated. If all his 'miracles' were just applications of the laws of physics then that renders him a bit of a fraud really.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm


Which did he do then?To me it would seem we're trying our best to fit into the universe rather than the universe being shaped around us.

---

I'm not particulary for the idea about a bible dictating the scientifical truth for me, because i don't find it useful scientifically.

We really try to fit into universe don't we? in fact i think we fit perfectly and that life can be so very simple if you just let it be, but our eagerness and selfishness makes it difficult. It's natural for us to improove ourself, evolve and try to be as efficient as possible, but does it really result in nothing but temporary personal satisfaction, and usually more problems? Ok that was a bit off topic but i wanted to mention that.

Imagine God drawing a painting. If our struggle between our selfish thinking and "being a good being" is the key in god's creation's purpose, rather than say the randomness of nuclear decay, he would first draw man, with his twisted mind, and then draw something around him which he can interact with and use to project his actions on, experiment and observ the results on.

If there was a purpose, say Jesus had to walk on water for some dumb reason, and then man would need to have his physical laws around him that says you just can't do what Jesus just did, then wouldn't it be the same issue; God prioritized Jesus actions before the consistency of man's physical laws, he didn't bend the laws, the laws were put there, after he drew Jesus, in programming terms; Jesus walking wasn't the exception, but the laws.

Quote:

---

Do you mean that Jesus might have believed he was divine so much that he shaped reality around him?

It seems to me, though, that if he used the laws of physics to walk on water then that's simply another way of saying he cheated. If all his 'miracles' were just applications of the laws of physics then that renders him a bit of a fraud really.

---

I'm not assuming Jesus was a man, but a God or maybe a projection of God in a man or something, doesn't matter. The point is that he was not a man like us.

And again, "miracles" came first, then the laws. And if someone is trying to missunderstand me here, i'm talking about priority, not chronology. A programmer could see it in a way of dependencies.

Quote:

---

And if someone is trying to missunderstand me here, i'm talking about priority, not chronology. A programmer could see it in a way of dependencies.

---

Programmers round here? Don't be daft!

Quote:

---

We really try to fit into universe don't we? in fact i think we fit perfectly and that life can be so very simple if you just let it be, but our eagerness and selfishness makes it difficult. It's natural for us to improove ourself, evolve and try to be as efficient as possible, but does it really result in nothing but temporary personal satisfaction, and usually more problems?

---

It depends what you think our purpose is before you can judge how well 'suited' we are to the universe. But, considering how vulnerable we are (and insignificant in the grand scheme of things) it doesn't really seem that the universe was created with us in mind. How few places there are in the universe that we could even survive in is incredibly few. Infact, I don't even think that the universe is particularly receptive to life in general (let alone human life).

First off, destiny is that which is involved with predestination. Fate is of the same ilk, but doesn't require the involvement of your destiny. In either case, this is a semantic arguement. I brought up fate because the idea you proposed has been around since the time of polythesitic religions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
If there was a purpose, say Jesus had to walk on water for some dumb reason, and then man would need to have his physical laws around him that says you just can't do what Jesus just did, then wouldn't it be the same issue; God prioritized Jesus actions before the consistency of man's physical laws, he didn't bend the laws, the laws were put there, after he drew Jesus, in programming terms; Jesus walking wasn't the exception, but the laws.

---

This assumes that no man in the history of man had ever tried to walk on water himself. Man didn't make that law, he got wet and realized that walking on water unaided was not a good thing. And he got wet long before Jesus was born.

I see what you are trying to say, but you still have no basis, no proof for your idea. And since it is as far-fetched as flying pigs (its possible but it didn't happen), it simply can't be accepted. The rest of your conversation hinges on this obtuse spirituality, and since I don't believe in the god of any organized religion, I'm don't going to believe in the god that is man or Kedaman.

Tygur, I've heard there is a list, of fixed size, of the people who will be admitted into heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
It depends what you think our purpose is before you can judge how well 'suited' we are to the universe. But, considering how vulnerable we are (and insignificant in the grand scheme of things) it doesn't really seem that the universe was created with us in mind. How few places there are in the universe that we could even survive in is incredibly few. Infact, I don't even think that the universe is particularly receptive to life in general (let alone human life).

---

Stephen Craine I believe...

"Sir," a man said to the universe,
"I exist."
"I know," replied the universe,
"but this fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

I may have quoted it wrong, but you get the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

---

Even though I would bet money that sometime in their history they have done something “evil”, you actually reminded me of what I feel is the greatest “evil” in religion, attempting to force your beliefs on to someone else. Jehovah's Witnesses are really guilty of this. The two times I have dealt with them they kept attempting to “*****” their beliefs on me. I think that this is just wrong. One thing that makes all who we are is what we believe.

Sure you and I can stand here for months fighting this out, but the bottom line is that there is very little chance you will change what I believe, and very little chance I will change what you believe. That’s just fine because that’s who you are and that’s who I am. In all likelihood this will never change any time soon.

But I hate it, REALLY HATE IT, when people, priest, religions, attempt to use and/or force religious beliefs, that they have, on to other people. That’s why when they come to my door, attempting to prostitute their beliefs on to me, I get pissed off. Which usually ends in a full on shouting match with them mumbling something about god and my soul.

Quote:

---

If you don't worship him, you aren't really living your life to the best of your ability. You are choosing not to worship him. Worshipping him is just as required as not lying, cheating, etc.

If you live a completely good life except for committing adultery, that's not considered a good life. It was spoiled by one thing. It's the same thing with worshipping God. If you do everything else, but you don't worship God, it was ruined by one thing.

---

I just do not understand this at all. If god is supposed to be forgiving and everything then why would one thing in my live, not worshipping him, destroy everything good that I have done in my life. This just seems stupid to me. So once again, why would he be so vain as to require people to worship him. Just seems like god is really insecure.

Quote:

---

I don't know where the stereotypical position for prayer came from, so I'm going to have to assume you're right.

The bible mentions all sorts of positions of prayer, and there is no set posture you must have when you pray. You can actually say a prayer without having any outward appearance that you are praying. (See Nehemiah 2:4) The bible says to pray "with every form of prayer and supplication" (See Ephesians 6:18).

---

I think that if I were a religious type I would not use that previous type, but something more like the Muslims or a silent prayer.

Quote:

---

How can I answer this? The money always came from the people. Though it is bad to waste the money on material posessions and showing off, as the catholics so blatantly did. In the bible, the money came voluntarily. (See Mark 12:41-43) My best answer is that it's a way the people can show their devotion.

How much is "that much"? See my above answer.

---

I live next to what must be 10 churches. There is a Baptist, Catholic, Christian, Later day Saints, Calvary, Protestant, Jehovah, and more that I can no think of. Every single one of these is a huge church, with a large cross, most of the crosses glow some kind of color at night. They all have huge stain glass windows, large doors, and expensive looking exteriors. Now I have never been inside of any of these, but I would wager that the inside of these are as nice and expensive as the outside.

Now I live in a very nice, expensive area in California. Where the growth is the second fastest in Cali, and fourth in the nation. So maybe these churches are out of the norm. But why is that these churches have to be this big and this expensive looking? Did god say “I feel like you guys need to worship me in style, so build these huge expensive buildings”.

I would guess it’s the same reason some people buy nice clothes, or cars or houses. They feel they are better than everyone else so they try to flaunt it. Oh look we got more money so we are going to build a better church then those other guys. Umm isn’t this evil? Once again it looks like religion is being hypocritical again.

Quote:

---

I can't say anything about it because I don't know anything about it. All I can say is that I've never heard of it. If it was so well-discussed, there's gotta be something about it somewhere..

---

If I ever get some free time I will try to look it up. It came out like 5 years ago and was quickly attacked by everything/everyone that has a stake in religion in any way. So like I said I am not supprised that it just kinda went away

I would also like to give you some BIG TIME credit. You have been standing by your beliefs and fighting a good battle. You have done a fine job, you should be proud of yourself. Like I said, we my not agree on what we think is right, but I respect someone that will stand up for what he believes in. Even when he is fighting a battle against overwhelming amount of people.

UNLIKE THAT PU$$Y jesus4u that start this thread and just barely stands up for what he started. I have no respect for you.

Quote:

---

Now I live in a very nice, expensive area in California. Where the growth is the second fastest in Cali, and fourth in the nation. So maybe these churches are out of the norm. But why is that these churches have to be this big and this expensive looking? Did god say “I feel like you guys need to worship me in style, so build these huge expensive buildings”.

---

You think you have extravagant churches in California? Check out some of the churches/cathedrals in Europe!

I think the extravagance of the church (particually in the past) has been used to inspire awe and respect in the mind of peasants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tecnocrat

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

---

Even though I would bet money that sometime in their history they have done something “evil”...

---

History? What history? They've only been around for about 100 years. They haven't had a chance to do much "evil" yet.

I don't need to stand up for Jesus. He can stand up for Himself.
I just tell it like it is.

As for this thread I was posting a poll.

:D

There are some churches that I think are meant to be in honor of, with the mindset that this is the biggest, most beautiful building we could build, and we don't feel any building which doesn't praise god should be its equal. And while I can respect that attitude, it isn't far from corruption. Loosing the message amoung the people and their desire to collect and spend money in gods name is one of the grievances Martin Luthor had with the Catholic church.

Anyway... I haven't seen any of the European churches and cathedrals, but National Cathedral is a very very impressive structure. It is goregous. Duke Chapel is very nice, too, and has an impressive reverb'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
I don't need to stand up for Jesus. He can stand up for Himself.
I just tell it like it is.

As for this thread I was posting a poll.

---

Yes, well, your poll was lame. Jesus and Mohammed both existed, I have no reason to doubt that. But I don't think god did. Which option is that?

Quote:

---

I don't need to stand up for Jesus. He can stand up for Himself.
I just tell it like it is.

---

OK, we'll just wait for Jusus to log on and take up his side of the debate.

....

:p

....

:D

....

;)

....

:)

....

:cool:

....

:rolleyes:

....

:(

....

:mad:

....

Nope, I don't think it's going to happen.

Perhaps in his absence Jesus4u would like to fill in?

simonm:
True, it just shows my point even more. I have never seen any of these churches before, other than pictures and VR tours. I would like to see them some time, mainly just to see them and the history behind them. Maybe to see the evil and curruption it took to make them also.

True JW have not be around that long but I would be willing to bet that even in that small amount of time they have done something in the name of god, that was not really godly. Like I said before, to me "whoring" their religion already makes them evil in my book.

jesus4u
Thats the best you got. God damn that's weak. Even pushed you can't defend your religion. If I was Jesus I would stike you down for even using that name.


simonm
We are going to have to wait a long time for that. I can sit here all day waiting for Harry Potter, Jack Ryan, King Rat, Hanibal Lector, or any other fictional character from any fictional book and most likely they will never show up.




Another point, think how insanely simple it would be for me to start a religion. I would just have to sit down and write a fictional book of stories that basically outline what you should do in my religion to have a good life. I would have to put in a bunch of contradictions in there so it will always be discussions of what the true meaning is. Then get a group of people together and tell them that there is an invisible man in the sky. This man requires you to follow this book I wrote or else the man in the sky would be mad.

Once that is done I tell them that the man in the sky really wants us to pray to him. But for us to do that right we need an expensive place to do this. Since I am a disciple of god they should give me the money to make this building. After that’s done I would just keep telling them that I need more money to spread the word of the man in the sky around the world. Once I do that I make sure that anyone in my group that has in “power” in the world do what I…I mean the man in sky wants.

There we go, seems pretty easy to do. Then whenever something strange or unexplained happens I just say the man in the sky did it. I would also have to put some bad person in my book to help explain whenever someone does something wrong, I can say that he caused it to happen.

Maybe some day after an apocalypse one of the fictional characters in my book will rise again and lead us to the happy place. That way if an apocalypse does happen I got that covered to.

I think I will call my man in the sky Danzig. Hmm maybe I will call my good guy Jebus. As for the bad guy….How about Michael Bolton. There we go that sounds good.

But if I would to do this I would be called crazy and my religion would be called a cult not a religion. Funny that cults and religions are different. Funny that if I were to do this I would be labeled a cult by the same people that are already a part of a larger cult (Umm I mean religion.). Funny that the Bible is not filed under fiction in bookstores or libraries.

Well I am off to pray to Danzig before he gets mad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

This assumes that no man in the history of man had ever tried to walk on water himself. Man didn't make that law, he got wet and realized that walking on water unaided was not a good thing. And he got wet long before Jesus was born.

---

What would you call it? You say that we don't "make" or "invent" laws, they exist without man. I'm telling you over and over again this is not a valid argument. The laws were made up as a tool for man to understand reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I see what you are trying to say, but you still have no basis, no proof for your idea. And since it is as far-fetched as flying pigs (its possible but it didn't happen), it simply can't be accepted. The rest of your conversation hinges on this obtuse spirituality, and since I don't believe in the god of any organized religion, I'm don't going to believe in the god that is man or Kedaman.

Tygur, I've heard there is a list, of fixed size, of the people who will be admitted into heaven.

---

*ahem* I think you got lost a bit, look at the topic. Weren't we discussing how Jesus was able to walk on water? Weren't we assuming that there was a God and that Jesus was his son? What on earth are you doing in this conversation if you say "I don't believe in God" to everything you don't like. You were suggesting something yourself and it certainly is much more far fetched if you ask me.

Quote:

---

simonm
t depends what you think our purpose is before you can judge how well 'suited' we are to the universe. But, considering how vulnerable we are (and insignificant in the grand scheme of things) it doesn't really seem that the universe was created with us in mind. How few places there are in the universe that we could even survive in is incredibly few. Infact, I don't even think that the universe is particularly receptive to life in general (let alone human life).

---

I don't have a scale to compare with and neither do you, so we're lost on this issue. You might complain about a lot, and so do i, but would you rather live a "perfect" life. And how do you define that? How can you be sure, that this isn't exactly the best for us?

Technocrat

Quote:

---

before this time most cultures were worshiping more than one god. So if Adam new about god, being the one and only god, then why did the Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, Africans, Eskimos, etc. believe that there was more than one god.

---

I don't know where other nations got the concept of many gods from. Perhaps it was Satan's doing. Am I correct in guessing you have an explanation as to why they believed in multiple gods?

Quote:

---

Since I dont have a bible I cant quote you the line. If you were to quote what the man Jesus looks like (From a real bible, not one that has "modified") it basicaly give a discription of him being "black".

---

I'm going to have to look into this. I was under the impression that the bible didn't give a description of his appearance. If you find out where it is, let me know.

Quote:

---

So then god is a **** up?

---

No, the dinosaurs simply served their purpose.

Quote:

---

So if I had sex with my sister (UG I CANT BELIEVE I AM SAYING THIS. ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD I GUESS) our children would have genetic mistakes because of our similarities on a genetic level. So with that being said, how is it possible that through all those years of incest that must have occurred that anyone actually survived? We would have died out in about 100 years because of no new genetic material.

---

Read this quote from a book called "Reasoning from the Scriptures":

Quote:

---

The Bible record does indicate that Cain married one of his sisters (Gen. 4:17; 5:4) and that Abram married his half sister. (Gen. 20:12) But later, in the Law given through Moses, such marriage unions were specifically forbidden. (Lev. 18:9, 11) They are not permitted among Christians today. Marriage to a close relative results in a more-than-average probability that damaging hereditary factors will be passed on to their offspring.

Why was brother-and-sister marriage not inappropriate at the beginning of mankind's history? God created Adam and Eve perfect and purposed that all humankind descend from them. (Gen. 1:28; 3:20) Obviously some marrying of close relatives, especially within the first few generations, would occur. Even after sin made its appearance, there was relatively little danger of marked deformities in the children during early generations, because the human race was much closer to the perfection that had been enjoyed by Adam and Eve. This is attested to by the longevity of people then. (See Genesis 5:3-8; 25:7.) But about 2,500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage. This served to safeguard the offspring and it elevated the sexual morality of Jehovah's servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices.-See Leviticus 18:2-18.

---

Quote:

---

Plus how is it that we all do not look alike?

---

Look above at those talks about speciation.

Quote:

---

you actually reminded me of what I feel is the greatest "evil" in religion, attempting to force your beliefs on to someone else. Jehovah's Witnesses are really guilty of this.

---

What do we do to force our beliefs on others? Just coming to your door isn't enough. All you have to do is say you're not interested and we go.

From what I hear, some people have been very persistant at the door and pressed on even after people said they weren't interested. I even heard from someone on this forum that someone stuck their foot in the door. I asked my mother about this. Apparently, we used to do that stuff until we realized that we shouldn't. So if that's your evil act, you got me there.

Changing your religion is a big decision and shouldn't be done without much research on the matter. It says that in one of our publications. As far as I know, we don't force our religion on other people now, if we ever did.

Quote:

---

I just do not understand this at all. If god is supposed to be forgiving and everything then why would one thing in my live, not worshipping him, destroy everything good that I have done in my life.

---

Before I answer this one any further, what do you think worshipping god includes doing?

Quote:

---

I live next to what must be 10 churches. There is a Baptist, Catholic, Christian, Later day Saints, Calvary, Protestant, Jehovah, and more that I can no think of. Every single one of these is a huge church, with a large cross, most of the crosses glow some kind of color at night. They all have huge stain glass windows, large doors, and expensive looking exteriors. Now I have never been inside of any of these, but I would wager that the inside of these are as nice and expensive as the outside.

---

I know for certain that the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses does not have a cross (We call it a kingdom hall instead of a church). And we do not have elaborate stained glass all around the building. Compared to your typical church, it is mostly bland. There is no statue of Jesus inside or any of that stuff. It might look nice, though. There might be landscaping and stuff. But all kinds of buildings have that. And much of the work on the kingdom hall is done by us, without hired help. We even build it ourselves.

By the way, the statue of Jesus is against the bible. And the cross originates with pagan religions. And Jesus was hung on a stake, not a cross. Just some bits of information.


Whoever asked about that finite number
I forgot who asked about it. The number is 144,000. It's the number of people that will be going to be ruling with Jesus in heaven. Like I said, we aren't looking forward to going to heaven. We're looking forward to everlasting life on earth after armageddon. The 144,000 are a special group, called the annointed. They were chosen by Jesus or God. I think it was Jesus, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. Only these people are to drink the wine and eat the bread during the memorial of Christ's death. Many people call it the passover, but this isn't entirely correct, because the passover was a different celebration held for a completely different event. If anyone wants me to go any deeper, let me know. Also let me know if you want me to go hunting for all the scriptures to back this up.



jesus4u

Quote:

---

I don't need to stand up for Jesus. He can stand up for Himself.
I just tell it like it is.

---

You are showing yourself to be naive. What is your religion, by the way? Do you know enough about the bible to be truly sure that your beliefs are correct? I'm forced to believe that you don't, becaue of that scripture you showed me that you claimed described heaven. You never said anything back to show that I'm wrong.

In a way, you're actually working against your religion by not standing up for your beliefs.

kedaman
It may seem like I'm ignoring you, because I haven't said anything about your theory yet. I've been watching your explanations and I'm waiting until I understand it well enough before I say anything against it. Just wanted to let you know...

Quote:

---

Tygur
You are showing yourself to be naive. What is your religion, by the way? Do you know enough about the bible to be truly sure that your beliefs are correct? I'm forced to believe that you don't, becaue of that scripture you showed me that you claimed described heaven. You never said anything back to show that I'm wrong.

---

In defence of Jesus4u, I would say that the likely explanation for the differences in the specifics of your beliefs are in the particular translations of the bible that you are refering to.

I'm not saying that one is more valid than the other, but the Jehova's Witness read a bible translated for them by Watchtower and there are notable differences to the more widely accepted translation that most other christians churches use.

Quote:

---

I don't know where other nations got the concept of many gods from. Perhaps it was Satan's doing.

---

Te belief in many gods (polytheism) has been round for much longer than the belief in one supreme god (monotheism). Jewdaism was one of the first monotheistic religions.


As for you quote from "Reasoning from the Scriptures", Do you really believe that? There are strong evolutionary reasons why it is not good to breed with close relatives (in all animals) and those make more sense than this "interpretation" of the scriptures.

Quote:

---

In defence of Jesus4u, I would say that the likely explanation for the differences in the specifics of your beliefs are in the particular translations of the bible that you are refering to.

---

I doubt that. The bible we use was put together with care, based on the earliest copies of the bible we could get to.

Many times, over the course of typing the answers on this forum, I've checked various online bibles to see what they said at the various scriptures I was quoting.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that one is more valid than the other, but the Jehova's Witness read a bible translated for them by Watchtower and there are notable differences to the more widely accepted translation that most other christians churches use.

---

The most notable difference is that ours includes God's name () where theirs has the word, Lord. This is because later copies/translations of the bible actually had God's name taken out.

Quote:

---

As for you quote from "Reasoning from the Scriptures", Do you really believe that? There are strong evolutionary reasons why it is not good to breed with close relatives (in all animals) and those make more sense than this "interpretation" of the scriptures.

---

If I understand correctly, the evolutionary reason why it is bad to breed with close relatives is because it is more likely for defects to manifest themselves in the offspring because both parents would have the same defects (mostly, anyway). If people started out perfect, there would be no defects. But as we know, genetic mutations do occur, and it eventually would be a problem. But it wasn't a problem right away.

Tygur I have been studying the Bible for 15 years. I have read it cover to cover. With MUCH research I have concluded that it is a totally accurate record, without error, and completely and unequivocally inspired by God.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
without error
:D

---

Are you trying to tell me that there are no mistakes in the bible?

I find that very hard to believe! :D

SD

again...if you do an honest research into Biblical History you WILL find there are absolutely NO errors within the Bible at all.

Don't you think that if God wanted to preserve His only Word to communicate to us with, He would?

But what about all the translations into different languages. Are you trying to say that he preserved the meaning of all those different works. Surely SOME errors would have crept in?

SD

Actually all translations of the Bible into other languages ARE error free too. I personally know people in China, France and South America who read the Bible and their translations are exactly the same as the English versions.

Quote:

---

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

---

I'm sure you've seen this before. Rabbits don't chew the cud.

Please explain why it's in the bible then,

SD

Tygur OK, I get your point about the incest thing.

Quote:

---

The most notable difference is that ours includes God's name () where theirs has the word, Lord. This is because later copies/translations of the bible actually had God's name taken out.

---

There are other differences although I can not list them as I am not an expert on either versions. Many Christians have told me (of those who had looked at the WatchTower version) that it differs in a few key areas with their version.
That explains the differences of opinion over whether there is such a thing as 'heaven and hell' or not.

I was told by a Jehova's witness once that "non-believers" would not go to hell, rather thay would be cast into oblivion.

Quote:

---

if you do an honest research into Biblical History you WILL find there are absolutely NO errors within the Bible at all.

---

:p :D :p Don't make me laugh! :p :D :p

If you are serious about looking for flaws in the Bible then read 'The age of reason' by Thomas Paine. It was written about 200 years ago and he does a thorough dismantling of both old and new testament.

so are you going to trust what Thomas Paine says about the Bible?

Why not research it yourself?

Quote:

---

Actually all translations of the Bible into other languages ARE error free too. I personally know people in China, France and South America who read the Bible and their translations are exactly the same as the English versions.

---

Jesus4u, How many languages do you speak? It doesn't sound like you speak more than one because if you did you would realise that there are always words and phrases that cannot be directly translated without some distortion of it's meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
so are you going to trust what Thomas Paine says about the Bible?

Why not research it yourself?

---

I have no idea who Thomas Paine is, and no I'm not interested enough to research it myself. I read the bible as a kid, and even then thought it was a bit far fetched.

So my original question should be. Is this quote in the bible? And if so, doesn't it contradict your earlier statements?

SD

I don't "Trust" thomas Pain, I checked his claims against a copy of the Bible I had at the time I read it.

simonm ... I speak 2 other languages. I don't believe that is an accurate statement. In fact all other languages enhance the original Biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew because these languages have more descriptive meanings for words, unlike English.

Quote:

---

There are other differences although I can not list them as I am not an expert on either versions. Many Christians have told me (of those who had looked at the WatchTower version) that it differs in a few key areas with their version.
That explains the differences of opinion over whether there is such a thing as 'heaven and hell' or not.

---

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. In many places where other bibles translate sheol or hades to hell, our bible transliterates it.

Quote:

---

I'm sure you've seen this before. Rabbits don't chew the cud.

---

Apparently they do, but it is done in an unusual way:

Quote:

---

Lev. 11:6: "The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud." Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.

---

Tygur,

How apperantly do they chew the cud? Either they do or they don't. I'm assuming that they do not have the sperate stomaches of a cow, therefore they do not chew the cud.

Please explain.

SD

You might be mistaken by thinking that because Rabbits eat their own faeces (the light brown ones I seem to recall, the black "pellets" have already been processed twice). This is not chewing the cud, which involves regurgitating food from one stomach, chewing it, then re-swallowing it.

This faces eating has never been called chewing the cud, and probably has it's own name. I'll go look it up.

Found it: coprophagy

Therefore, I ask again. If the bible is without fault and is guided by the hand of god, surely the correct word would have been used.

It sounds a lot more believable to me, that some guy writing a story (the bible) saw rabbits chewing and not knowing any better assumed that they were "chewing the cud". The other explanations seem to be stretching the facts to fit the argument.

SD

Tum tee tum tee tum.

Any time you want, but it'd better be soon as I'm off for the weekend in a wee bit.:)

SD

I am outta here right now for the weekend.

See you Monday!!!!

Have a great weekend Jesus4u!

SD

SurfDemon
I was away from home. That post was just something I dug up real quick before I left. I'm back now and I'm going to look into it.

Here's something I found:
http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm

Apparently, rabbits do chew their cud, but in a completely different manner. Cows cough it back up. Rabbits have it come out the other end and then chew it again.

Quote:

---

I speak 2 other languages. I don't believe that is an accurate statement. In fact all other languages enhance the original Biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew because these languages have more descriptive meanings for words, unlike English.

---

I happen to be Jewish and speak a little hebrew and I know for a fact that it is a very limited language compared to English (that is one of the richest languages in the world in terms of descriptive words).

And if you're saying that English does not have enough words to translate every hewbrew or greek word then how can a bible translated into english be entirely acurate?

Surf Demon and Tygur,

I cannot believe you are debating whether rabits chew cud or not! To what depths has this thread sunk to! :rolleyes: